I was mildly a Scott Adams fan until I read this commentary on his defense of "Intelligent Design" creationism. Following the Dennis Miller precident, I do believe I'm done with Scott Adams. *sigh*
Hmmm. Sca-a-a-a-ary. I find Adams an absolute hoot when he speaks about corporate America, because I've lived it. But that commentary is pretty out-there. I guess he thought he'd "common-sense" his way through it or something.
I think he should re-learn what so many of us writers of humor tend to forget: that intelligently, humorously mocking things is a wholly seprarate competency from understanding things. Writing down one's sloppy, malinformed half-logic in a clever and entertaining way may make it persuasive, but it doesn't make it any more correct. Grrr.
Am I the only one here who's heard of the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)?
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It's a cute anecdote, and fun, but it doesn't really cut it as a work of philosophy. Adams admits that he is just making it up as he goes along. For more lucid and to-the-point treatments of some of the same topics by someone who knows more about what he's talking about, I recommend the works of Daniel Dennett, especially Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Having.
About scientific theories: a simpler theory is better only if it not hopelessly vague! General relativity may be abstruse, but the only way the old guy's theory of gravity is going to be at all useful is if he fiddles with the math until it is the same theory as GR — also, sorry, you don't get the concept "closer to" for free, and more than you get "matter" or "time" for free!
You get the idea — perhaps an entertaining, even thought-provoking read, but not destined to become a classic of metaphysics, or of sense-making.
Yes, sometimes Occam's Razor can be used to justify the application of an overly large set of blinders.
While "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything," the key word here is 'necessary.' By the very nature of the beast, we are not usually in a position to judge 'necessity' of contributing factors in an analysis until after a solution has not only been postulated but verified. In other words, Occam's Razor is applicable *only* as a theory until we have a solid solution to a problem, at which point it becomes a blisteringly obvious principle. Many chickens and eggs are involved in the philosophy of this one. Granted, it does help to give one a starting point in formulating a solution.
Not coincidentally, a good field for the misapplication of Occam's Razor is genetics, which is fundamental to the understanding of evolution. Most of us aren't even vaguely qualified to guess at what constitutes 'necessity' in determining how genes interact to produce a single, identifiable physical characteristic.
For example, the children of two blue-eyed parents should also be blue-eyed. We expect this because of a preponderance of evidence. But what about the children of two hazel-eyed parents? In the absence of evidence, one could use Occam's Razor to assume that they are also going to be hazel-eyed. When the evidence fails to support this theory, we need to admit that things are more complicated than they appear. We need to consider other factors, then rework the model.
The next least-complicated explanation is Mendel's model of genetics, which incorporates the ideas of dominant and recessive genes to allow the possibility of two 'like' characteristics to combine in a predictable fashion to create an 'unlike' result. Based on the results of his experiments with the inherited characteristics of pea plants, Mendel's model indicates that if we can look up the genetic tree somewhat, we should be able to determine the outcome when we cross two genes.
This was an important work, to be sure. It works very well for specific properties of pea plants. But does it work for other characteristics and other species? Well, yes and no. As it turns out, it depends on the question. For humans, it works very well for predicting and understanding blood types. But does it work for human eye colour? Uhhh, if everyone has blue eyes, sure, but we can already predict that outcome of that pairing with our eyes closed (so to speak). In general, though, this version of the model doesn't really fit. Back to the drawing board.
As it turns out and as I understand it--and I'm taking things largely on faith at this point, since my knowledge of the subject has pretty much petered out--human eye colouring is determined by not one but THREE genes. The original theory was, as Occam would have it, that only a single gene controlled eye colour. It was a reasonable starting point--it was simple, it was logical, and it was wrong. There came a time when someone stopped pounding his head against a wall and threw in the towel on that one.
Under the circumstances, I'm not even going to pretend to understand the nuances of genetics and evolution, much less try to explain why (not how) birds fly and fish swim or, even more ambitious, presume the motives of someone suddenly creating birds or fish out of nothingness. Heck, I'm still trying to figure out how to cook fried eggs with runny yolks.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-17 07:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-17 07:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-17 07:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-17 09:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-17 09:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-18 03:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-17 10:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-18 08:45 am (UTC)It's a cute anecdote, and fun, but it doesn't really cut it as a work of philosophy. Adams admits that he is just making it up as he goes along. For more lucid and to-the-point treatments of some of the same topics by someone who knows more about what he's talking about, I recommend the works of Daniel Dennett, especially Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Having.
About scientific theories: a simpler theory is better only if it not hopelessly vague! General relativity may be abstruse, but the only way the old guy's theory of gravity is going to be at all useful is if he fiddles with the math until it is the same theory as GR — also, sorry, you don't get the concept "closer to" for free, and more than you get "matter" or "time" for free!
You get the idea — perhaps an entertaining, even thought-provoking read, but not destined to become a classic of metaphysics, or of sense-making.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-18 03:23 pm (UTC)While "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything," the key word here is 'necessary.' By the very nature of the beast, we are not usually in a position to judge 'necessity' of contributing factors in an analysis until after a solution has not only been postulated but verified. In other words, Occam's Razor is applicable *only* as a theory until we have a solid solution to a problem, at which point it becomes a blisteringly obvious principle. Many chickens and eggs are involved in the philosophy of this one. Granted, it does help to give one a starting point in formulating a solution.
Not coincidentally, a good field for the misapplication of Occam's Razor is genetics, which is fundamental to the understanding of evolution. Most of us aren't even vaguely qualified to guess at what constitutes 'necessity' in determining how genes interact to produce a single, identifiable physical characteristic.
For example, the children of two blue-eyed parents should also be blue-eyed. We expect this because of a preponderance of evidence. But what about the children of two hazel-eyed parents? In the absence of evidence, one could use Occam's Razor to assume that they are also going to be hazel-eyed. When the evidence fails to support this theory, we need to admit that things are more complicated than they appear. We need to consider other factors, then rework the model.
The next least-complicated explanation is Mendel's model of genetics, which incorporates the ideas of dominant and recessive genes to allow the possibility of two 'like' characteristics to combine in a predictable fashion to create an 'unlike' result. Based on the results of his experiments with the inherited characteristics of pea plants, Mendel's model indicates that if we can look up the genetic tree somewhat, we should be able to determine the outcome when we cross two genes.
This was an important work, to be sure. It works very well for specific properties of pea plants. But does it work for other characteristics and other species? Well, yes and no. As it turns out, it depends on the question. For humans, it works very well for predicting and understanding blood types. But does it work for human eye colour? Uhhh, if everyone has blue eyes, sure, but we can already predict that outcome of that pairing with our eyes closed (so to speak). In general, though, this version of the model doesn't really fit. Back to the drawing board.
As it turns out and as I understand it--and I'm taking things largely on faith at this point, since my knowledge of the subject has pretty much petered out--human eye colouring is determined by not one but THREE genes. The original theory was, as Occam would have it, that only a single gene controlled eye colour. It was a reasonable starting point--it was simple, it was logical, and it was wrong. There came a time when someone stopped pounding his head against a wall and threw in the towel on that one.
Under the circumstances, I'm not even going to pretend to understand the nuances of genetics and evolution, much less try to explain why (not how) birds fly and fish swim or, even more ambitious, presume the motives of someone suddenly creating birds or fish out of nothingness. Heck, I'm still trying to figure out how to cook fried eggs with runny yolks.